9722d7b6   
   From: esquel@sommarskog.se   
      
   stapes (steve.staple@gmail.com) writes:   
   > I have had to do maintenance work on a number of databases that have   
   > been created using what seems to me a very complex structure.   
   >   
   > For instance, instead of having one table of information on members of   
   > staff, there are 20. Separate tables exist for items which are   
   > compulsory - such as Medical information, Criminal Records, etc. I can   
   > understand this in the case of optional items, which may or may not   
   > exist, such as Interview results, or items which may exist in   
   > multiples, such as References.   
   >   
   > Is there any advantage to this kind of structure?   
      
   It's difficult to tell without seeing the full picture. But as Gene   
   points out, cardinality is a big deal. If there is one row for each   
   offense in the CriminalRecords table, you can't have that data in the   
   main table.   
      
   But from what you say "CriminalRecord" is a single column, presumably   
   a blob column. Maybe someone thought it would be better to have them   
   separated for some not such a good reason, for instance because   
   they use SELECT * all over the place.   
      
      
   --   
   Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se   
      
   Links for SQL Server Books Online:   
   SQL 2008: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/cc514207.aspx   
   SQL 2005: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/bb895970.aspx   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)